Safer in California?

California is proposing expansion of the Proposition 65 warning labels. It looks like they are trying to catch up with all the safety stickers on a ladder. From Packaging Digest:

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a pre-regulatory draft proposal, which would repeal the current regulatory warning requirements under Proposition 65 and adopt new ones that would require more detailed information. Currently, Proposition 65—also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986—prohibits knowingly exposing any individual to a listed chemical without first providing a “clear and reasonable warning” to such individual.

OEHHA is proposing to repeal the requirement for a “safe harbor” message and replace it with a warning program that has two components: (1) a pre-exposure warning and (2) a web-based process for providing additional information. It would apply to all warnings for exposures to listed chemicals, whether from consumer products (including foods, alcoholic beverages, drugs and medical devices), environmental sources or in occupational settings. The proposal also redefines “consumer product” to include “food.”

———-

The pre-exposure warning (that is, signage) would have the following minimum required elements: the word, “WARNING,” in all capital letters; the phrase, “will expose you to;” disclosure of any of 12 specified chemicals, if the subject of the warning; and a link to a new OEHHA website. Additionally, warnings for consumer products other than food, occupational and environmental exposures would be required to include the standard Globally Harmonized System pictogram for toxic hazards.

OSHA’s Globally Harmonized System can be found here. The proposed changes here and a sample of proposed warning labels here. Not many people seem to read labels now, making them more complex and intrusive is supposed to help? How many people will whip out their smart phones and go to the OEHHA website to check out the purchase before purchase?

This sounds more like a regulatory expansion without much really in the way of safety.

The only people that have benefited from prop 65 are the Socialist Government stooges and the people printing the signs we see (and ignore) everywhere.
I keep hoping someone will sue the state for claiming it “knows” that these substances “cause” cancer.
Increasing the incidence of a disease is not the same as causing it.